I’m asking them to help me draw precise lines around their concept in thingspace, and they’re going along with it (at first) until they realize...they don’t HAVE precise lines. There’s nothing there TO understand, or if there is, they don’t understand it, either.
There are no precise lines that can be drawn around anything. So if this meant that there was nothing to understand (which it does not), there would be nothing anywhere to understand about anything.
Basically what they are saying is this: concepts are something which are useful to us. They are not, and can never be, infinitely precise. You are overthinking if you are attempting to make them more precise than is needed for their usefulness.
Some people actually don’t use their supposed concepts in load-bearing ways, and are just telling you what the party line is according to them. You’re not expected to think at all, you’re expected to respond with an improve move—the norm is “yes, and”.
For example, the Sorites paradox is what you get when you start overthinking what a “heap” is. (Start with a heap of sand. Take away grains one at a time, until you don’t have a heap any more. Exactly which grain of sand was it that made the difference between being a heap and not being a heap? The correct answer is “Who the hell cares, we can still call something a ‘heap’ and be understood without actually needing to be able to handle the weird edge cases.”)
There are no precise lines that can be drawn around anything. So if this meant that there was nothing to understand (which it does not), there would be nothing anywhere to understand about anything.
Basically what they are saying is this: concepts are something which are useful to us. They are not, and can never be, infinitely precise. You are overthinking if you are attempting to make them more precise than is needed for their usefulness.
Some people actually don’t use their supposed concepts in load-bearing ways, and are just telling you what the party line is according to them. You’re not expected to think at all, you’re expected to respond with an improve move—the norm is “yes, and”.
For example, the Sorites paradox is what you get when you start overthinking what a “heap” is. (Start with a heap of sand. Take away grains one at a time, until you don’t have a heap any more. Exactly which grain of sand was it that made the difference between being a heap and not being a heap? The correct answer is “Who the hell cares, we can still call something a ‘heap’ and be understood without actually needing to be able to handle the weird edge cases.”)